Qualitative survey explores pelvic health physiotherapists’ knowledge and confidence working with LGBTQIA+ individuals, indicating a need for more training.
Background Inclusive pelvic health care for people with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other diverse bodies, identities and/or experiences (LGBTQIA+) is essential, yet little is known about physiotherapists’ preparedness to provide affirming care. This study explored the knowledge and confidence of pelvic health physiotherapists in Australia when working with LGBTQIA+ patients. Methods Qualified physiotherapists practising in pelvic health in Australia were invited to complete an online survey. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results Sixty-three participants met eligibility criteria. The median participant age was 38 years (interquartile range 32–47 years), with a median of 9 years’ (interquartile range 5–14 years) pelvic health clinical experience. Most participants identified as women (98.4%) and straight/heterosexual (87.3%), and 11.5% self-identified as LGBTQIA+. Although >75% of participants provided care for LGBTQIA+ patients, only 39% had undertaken LGBTQIA+-specific postgraduate education. One overarching theme, relationship between LGBTQIA+ exposure and knowledge and confidence, was identified, comprising two high-level themes: (1) the knowledge that shapes inclusive practice, and (2) pathways to inclusive practice. Participants with LGBTQIA+-specific pelvic health training and/or community connections demonstrated higher levels of knowledge and confidence, and most expressed a need for further training, particularly in gender-affirming language and care for people who are transgender. Conclusion Pelvic health physiotherapists in Australia demonstrate varied knowledge and confidence when treating LGBTQIA+ individuals, shaped by exposure and education. Integrating LGBTQIA+ content into training may enhance pelvic health physiotherapists’ capability to deliver inclusive, affirming care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kilroy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: